Standing Committee G

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Fire and Rescue Services Bill

Nicholas Winterton: We are round Tattenham corner, looking at the straight and the finishing line. I am sure that we shall get there agreeably. I am not privy to what is important to the Opposition or, for that matter, to the Government, apart from their Bill, but I hope that we can discuss all the important and relevant matters, even if only briefly.Clause 43 Powers of fire-fighters etc in an emergency etc

Clause 43 - Powers of fire-fighters etc in an emergency etc

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 129, in 
clause 43, page 20, line 13, at end insert— 
 '(aa) if he reasonably believes a fire to be about to break out, for the purpose of preventing the fire or protecting life or property.'.—[Mr. Hammond.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Nicholas Winterton: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 130, in
clause 43, page 20, line 18, at end insert 
 'and for the purpose of protecting life and property.'.

John Pugh: You missed a memorable sitting this morning, Sir Nicholas, but I am sure that this afternoon's sitting will be equally memorable.
 I was speaking in favour of amendment No. 129 and saying what a sensible amendment the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) had tabled in this case.

Philip Hammond: I thought that we left off when I was on my feet to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it had also occurred to him that, without the benefit of the amendment, a firefighter at the scene of what he reasonably anticipated would involve the outbreak of a fire would not have the power under subsection (2) to restrict access of persons to a place that he believed would be dangerous to them. He would not be able to exercise any of the powers under subsection (2) in the absence of the amendment.

John Pugh: That is a perfectly valid point. In fact, before we were interrupted by the break, I was pondering why the amendment had not been incorporated into the Bill, given that the legislation puts the accent on preventing disasters rather than on simply reacting to them as and when they occur. I was speculating on why such powers had not been included.
 The only explanation that I could come up with was that it might have been thought that the powers of the fire services would be made too wide. For example, although a fire service might have perfectly valid concerns that a chemical factory is in danger of going up in flames, there may be other issues about which it and the person who owns the chemical factory would not agree, and there could be litigation or complaint after the event. 
 Equally, we would not want the fire services to intrude in domestic bonfire incidents and to take it upon themselves to hose down people who are burning garden rubbish. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Bill, but given the common sense that, to some extent, is contained in the legislation, there is a concern as to how the power that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and I wish to see incorporated in the Bill can best be phrased. 
 There is a view that an Englishman's home is his castle, and that he is entitled to mess around inside it, whatever the risk. None the less, most people do not live in castles. Many live in flats or accommodation that is near to other accommodation.

Philip Hammond: The logic of the hon. Gentleman's comments would be that a firefighter should not have the right to break into premises in which a fire has broken out, and that an Englishman who wishes to burn down his castle should be allowed to do so without interruption.

John Pugh: No, that is not the logic of my position. I am endeavouring to argue that there is not automatically a case for intervention by the fire services if there is not actually a fire, but that some circumstances are sufficiently troubling for a fire service to want to do something before a blaze starts. That is why I support the amendment. I simply ask the Minister why prevention is not incorporated in the clause.

Nick Raynsford: Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 were tabled on the basis of a concern that firefighters should have the powers necessary to deal with emergencies. We believe that the Bill provides such powers. The Government do not wish in any way to prevent firefighters from responding in the most effective way to circumstances in which they might avoid a potential threat to life or injury as a result of fire or other emergencies.
 We are aware that some members of the service have expressed a wish to have a power to enter premises by force, if necessary, if they believe that there is an imminent threat of fire. Clearly, that is what amendment No. 129 addresses. The examples given so far have not been entirely convincing, but we are not unsympathetic to the concerns that have been expressed. During an earlier debate, we heard about an instance of the need to enter premises to deal with a problem or to demolish them to create a firebreak so that they would not allow fire to travel from one area to another. 
 There is no problem whatever with the available powers being used when a fire has broken out, but there may be circumstances in which it is thought that there is a risk of fire but it would probably be more appropriate for other emergency services to effect an entry. Indeed, the police have such powers in certain cases. We must balance the substantial powers enabling a public authority forcibly to enter premises without the consent of the owner against the public interest of ensuring that our firefighters have the necessary powers to be able to cope with risky circumstances. 
 The evidence that has been put forward so far is not wholly convincing. However, we are prepared to be convinced by stronger evidence and I would welcome any further operational examples of how the existing powers may be insufficient to enable firefighters to deal with a threat of fire. If such evidence is provided and proves to be robust, I would be more than happy to explore the issue further with a view to amending the Bill to accommodate the wish behind amendment No. 129. 
 I cannot take the same view of amendment No. 130, which would expand subsection (1)(c) and the powers of firefighters to deal with emergencies other than fires or road traffic accidents. The word ''emergency'' is defined in clause 55, which limits the power to specify functions under clause 9 to 
''an event or situation that causes or is likely to cause— 
 (a) one or more individuals to die, be seriously injured or become seriously ill, or 
 (b) serious harm to the environment''. 
The amendment would not add anything because the concept of risk to life is already implicit in the definition of emergency, and the wider reference to a threat to the environment is probably preferable to the more narrow definition of a risk to property. I can envisage circumstances—for example, a chemical or biological attack—in which there might be a significant risk to the environment, but no tangible risk to property. The existing framework, depending on the definition in clause 55, is preferable, and the amendment is not only unnecessary, but restrictive. 
 With that assurance that we are sympathetic to the principle behind amendment No. 129 but remain in need of more convincing evidence of circumstances in which current powers are not sufficient, I ask the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw the amendment.

Philip Hammond: On the Minister's response to amendment No. 130, I am prepared to be flexible, but I think that he is wrong to say that it might restrict the operation of the clause, because it is drafted to provide an additional ground for action for the purposes of protecting life and property. It was certainly not intended to restrict the actions of firefighters.
 I expected the Minister to take a slightly different tack and to say that it was inconceivable that in conferring functions under clause 9 he would not include a function of protecting life and property in the order that he makes. I do not think that it is implicit in 
 the drafting of clause 9 and the definition of emergency that that must be the case because I think that it would be perfectly proper for the Secretary of State to confer on a fire authority a support function in relation to a class of major emergency under that clause. Where it was envisaged that a number of authorities had different designated roles in a major emergency, it is not inconceivable that the function conferred on a single authority might not involve the protection of life and property. Such a function might be some much more prosaic support role. None the less, I am happy to accept the Minister's assurance that he is satisfied that the protection of life and property remains at the centre of those powers. 
 I am grateful for the spirit in which the Minister dealt with amendment No. 129, which is a genuine attempt to try to address a gap in the armoury of powers being given to the fire and rescue authorities. Of course, he is absolutely right that it will be preferable for the police to effect a forced entry in any circumstances that I can think of other than when a fire is raging, if they are on the scene. However, one of the themes that has run through the Government's thinking on the modernisation of the fire service, particularly in relation to medical co-response, which we will deal with later, is that it is not always the case, especially in rural or sparsely populated areas, that all the emergency services arrive on the scene together or within a few seconds of each other. There may be long periods when ''the wrong service'' is the only service in attendance. It seems to me that, in those circumstances, it is sensible to ensure that the services have cross-cutting powers so that they can deal with the situation on the ground, so far as that does not have any unintended and adverse consequences. 
 I agree with the Minister that the classic example in which a firefighter peers through a window, notices that the gas hob has been left on and immediately notices a candle burning on the table is not utterly convincing as an everyday scenario in 21st-century Britain. However, there will be situations in which a firefighter can deduce by using his specialist skill and knowledge that there is a risk to the premises. I suspect that, in such circumstances, a conscientious firefighter would feel obliged to act in a way that would be technically illegal and take the risk of doing so. That is something that we should avoid asking firefighters to do. We should avoid putting them in a situation in which they have to stand by and watch something disastrous happen or act outside the law. 
 I take on board the Minister's challenge, although I am not sure why I am doing so, because it strikes me that it should be for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to circularise the 49 English and Welsh fire authorities asking them whether they need that power and whether they can provide working examples, but I am happy to share the work load. I know that the ODPM is seriously under-resourced, and I am sure that my researcher will be only too happy to take on that burden. Having heard what the Minister has said, I am happy to ask leave to withdraw the amendment and to return to the issue on Report if it is practical to 
 do so, or in the other place if the time scale means that we cannot take the discussion any further by the Report stage. 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nicholas Winterton: We have about 18 clauses and two schedules to consider in the next two and a quarter hours. I hope that there will be expedition, but I can only guide from the Chair. It is up to the Committee to decide what it debates and what it does not, subject to the amendments. I call Mr. Philip Holland.

Philip Hammond: It is still Hammond.

Nicholas Winterton: I knew that I was going to make that mistake again. I hope that, with that total and abject apology from me, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, Mr. Philip Hammond, will now speak.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 131, in
clause 43, page 20, line 30, after 'with,' insert
', or fails to comply with a direction given by,'.
 I noted your earlier protestation that you have no knowledge of the plans of Her Majesty's Opposition, Sir Nicholas, but refusing to recognise them is stretching the point too far. 
 The amendment addresses subsection (3), which creates an offence of obstructing or interfering with an employee of a fire and rescue authority in the exercise of his powers under the clause. The amendment adds to that the offence of failing to comply with a direction of an employee of a fire and rescue authority using his powers under the clause. Perhaps the Minister will tell me that failing to comply with a direction is the same as obstructing or interfering, but I asked myself whether I could possibly construe obstructing or interfering with an employee as merely ignoring him, and on any natural interpretation of the language I could not make it work. 
 The practical situation that prompted me to raise the issue is drawn from my own experience. During the first few hours of the flooding last January, when my constituency was badly affected, the police were rather thin on the ground—to put it mildly—and firefighters effectively provided the only authority at the scene of incidents. I believe that as yet firefighters still have no powers to close a road. Technically, the county council had closed roads, and firefighters merely attempted to enforce the closures. I stand to be corrected—I detect a shuffle of papers—but I understood that to be the technical position. 
 Under the clause, firefighters will have powers to close roads, but one problem with relatively minor flooding is that properties that would not otherwise be flooded become so by virtue of the wake created by vehicles travelling at any speed along the road. That was a great problem last January, as people in four-wheel-drive vehicles driving through 4 in of water, which would not normally flood dwellings, created a 4 in tidal wave that did. Firefighters attempted to 
 prevent vehicles going down roads that were supposed to be closed, but people simply ignored them. As firefighters had no power to enforce closure, such behaviour was not an offence at the time. The county council, as the highway authority, would have had to enforce the closures. 
 It is unclear whether subsection (3) makes provision for someone ignoring a firefighter who tells them that they cannot, for instance, go into a building or down a road. If a member of the public picks up a firefighter and hurls him out of the way, he will be interfering with him; and if he intervenes to prevent the firefighter from stopping another vehicle, he will be obstructing him; but it is unclear whether having heard the firefighter say, ''You may not enter this building'' or, ''You may not enter this street'' then retreating into the background, waiting until he is looking the other way or dealing with something else before going around him will constitute an offence. 
 If the Minister can be categorical that ignoring an order not to drive down a highway or not to enter a building or a place will clearly be an offence, I will take his word for it. I would like him to explain how that is so, but if he is categorical we will accept that, and the amendment would be redundant.

John Pugh: I also support the amendment. The offences mentioned in the clause are obstruction and interference. As I understand it, the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge would add the offence of failing to comply with an instruction. There seems to be a clear and obvious distinction between putting an active impediment in the way of firefighters and simply not complying with what they say. We are talking about cases that will probably go to court, which will involve criminal prosecutions, and in which people's liberty will be at stake. The law should be as explicit as possible, because serious cases will arise. They will probably arise more commonly in association with major incidents. It ought to be fairly clear in the Bill what is prohibited.

Nick Raynsford: With amendment No. 131, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is rightly concerned to ensure that firefighters have the powers needed to deal with emergencies without interference. We believe that subsection (3) creates an offence that is already wide enough to deal with failure to comply with a direction. Let me explore one or two of the circumstances in which the offence might apply.
 The hon. Gentleman gave the example of flooding and suggested that vehicles proceeding along a road that was partially flooded could create a tidal wave that threatened to flood other premises. He quite rightly highlighted the importance of the firefighters who were first on the scene being able to close the road and prevent traffic from increasing the problem of flooding. Firefighters do in fact have the powers to close roads, but they are currently available only for firefighting purposes. Under current powers, firefighters would not be able to close roads in the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman. However, under the wider powers given to them by the 
 Bill, it will be possible to do so. Our view is that if a motorist deliberately ignored a clear instruction by a firefighter not to drive a vehicle down a road because that would create the risk of further flooding, that would be interference with a firefighter in the course of their duty, and subsection (3) would bite. 
 The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of direction. There are important issues, in the context of major incidents, relating to who should be in a position to direct the public for safety purposes if, for example, it was necessary to establish a cordon. The operational doctrine that applies to joint working between the emergency services normally leaves the police to fulfil that function. However, there will be certain circumstances in which it is appropriate for a firefighter, in the absence of the police, to prevent members of the public from putting themselves at risk or getting into a position in which they could obstruct the firefighting activity. Subsection (3) gives sufficient latitude for firefighters to issue instructions in those circumstances, with the expectation that they would be followed and that failure to follow them would render the person responsible liable for an offence of obstructing a firefighter in the course of their duty. 
 We would be cautious about extending the definition to a point at which it might raise legitimate doubts and call into question the normal presumption that it is for the police to oversee the control of the public, the creation of cordons and so forth.

John Pugh: I can think of a specific test case. Often there is a ghoulish interest in disasters, and the emergency services find it problematic that a number of people gravitate towards such incidents and hamper their work. If the fire services were to announce on local radio that they wanted people to stay away from an area but some motorists disobeyed the instruction because they wanted to observe the plane crash, or whatever the incident was, would they have committed an offence? Would the offence be classified as obstruction?

Nick Raynsford: That is a classic instance when it would be appropriate for the police to take the lead. Where there has been an incident and radio advertising says ''Keep away'', clearly the police will be involved and it will be right for them to take the lead in giving directions to the public rather than the firefighters.
 We are concerned with circumstances more akin to those outlined by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, where firefighters are first on the scene, the police have not arrived and we need to ensure that the public do not do something that might get in the way of the firefighting operation or put themselves at risk. We believe that the clause gives firefighters sufficient power to achieve the required result without raising any questions about the normal relationship between them and the other emergency services. I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw his amendment.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister of State. During his remarks a thought came into my mind. The power that firefighters are being given, particularly over motorists, must be publicised in some way. The motorists that I am thinking of—I saw the incidents happen—did not believe that they were at risk of committing an offence. They ignored what firefighters were telling them because it was inconvenient to them and because they perceived that, as they were not being instructed by the police, they could choose to ignore the instruction. In fairness to motorists, they need to be made aware that the law has changed. Will the Minister give some thought to advising motorists that firefighters are to have statutory powers to stop and regulate traffic and to prevent them from entering a highway or a building or place?
 The Minister said that he was satisfied that the offence of obstructing or interfering was of sufficient scope to deal with the problem. I am not entirely convinced about that—I stand to be corrected, because I am no expert on police powers—because my understanding is that police officers do not have to rely on offences of interfering with them or obstructing them in their duty. If the public ignore directions from police officers, particularly concerning moving traffic, they are specifically guilty of offences: the police do not have to rely on the general, catch-all approach of obstruction in the execution of duty. I agree with the Minister that we are only talking about situations where firefighters are alone at the scene. However, if we are serious about underlining the importance of their role, there should be appropriate symmetry. I have listened to what the Minister said and we do not disagree about what we are trying to achieve.

Nick Raynsford: I hope that it will help the hon. Gentleman towards what seems to be his destination of withdrawing the amendment if I say that we shall certainly take on board his suggestion that we should consider how the new powers can best be publicised. We shall issue guidance to fire and rescue authorities on their new powers once the Bill has received Royal Assent and we shall consider how we can make the public more widely aware that, in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, firefighters will be able to issue instructions that would involve a breach of the law if they are not complied with.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps one of those handy little flyers in a vehicle excise renewal notice or something like that would be appropriate. I believe that many of those in the example that I cited of the flooding last January thought, ''My vehicle is capable of driving through 6 in deep water because it is a brand new, four-wheel-drive vehicle'', and did not think through the implications for householders living on those streets. I am pleased that the Minister has taken that point on board. I am not 100 per cent. convinced, but given that the Minister clearly recognises the issue and is attempting
 to address it practically, it would be inappropriate to press the amendment. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - Powers of entry

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 132, in
clause 44, page 21, line 6, leave out from 'admission' to 'dwelling' in line 7 and insert
'by virtue of his powers under subsection (1) to any premises occupied as a'.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 133, in 
clause 44, page 21, line 9, after 'not' insert 
 'by virtue of his powers'. 
Amendment No. 134, in 
clause 44, page 21, line 9, leave out 'as of right'. 
Amendment No. 135, in 
clause 44, page 21, line 12, leave out 'private'. 
Amendment No. 136, in 
clause 44, page 21, line 29, after 'a' insert 'premises occupied as a'. 
Amendment No. 137, in 
clause 44, page 21, line 34, after 'any', insert 'reasonable'.

Philip Hammond: Clause 44 deals with powers of entry other than in cases of emergency. Subsection (1) sets out the scope of those powers—the obtaining of necessary information for the discharge of the functions of a fire and rescue authority or the work of investigating a fire. Subsection (3) then sets out a limitation on those powers of entry in respect of dwellings. It is in that area that the amendments bite.
 Amendment No. 132 seeks to do two things. First, it would remove the reference to admission ''as of right'', which seems to be a very broad and sweeping claim. ''As of right'' suggests something superior to any mere body of legislation, yet it seems that any powers exercised would not be ''as of right'' but by virtue of powers granted by subsection (1), which is somewhat more prosaic. Therefore, the amendment would replace the sweeping expression and replace it with: 
''by virtue of . . . subsection (1)''.
 That is much more modest and less threatening, and consistent with the normal form of drafting that we are used to. 
 Secondly, the amendment would remove the reference to ''a private dwelling'', substituting simply ''a dwelling''. That is a perfectly well used term; it is used throughout legislation—particularly planning legislation, which is within the remit of the same Department, so Ministers should be able to check that fairly quickly—and, indeed, elsewhere in this Bill. Subsections (3) and (4) refer to a ''private dwelling'' and subsections (7) and (8) to a ''dwelling''. That appears to be inconsistent. 
 By my logic, if there is such a thing as a private dwelling, there must be something that can be juxtaposed with it, such as a public dwelling—but that does not make any sense. I asked myself whether the issue was about ownership of dwellings, but I am certain that that cannot be the intention. A dwelling is a dwelling; it is a place where somebody lives, and who owns it is immaterial. The concept of a public dwelling is rather mysterious to me. Perhaps a hotel is a public dwelling; perhaps the Minister will clarify that in due course. On first reading, the construction seems odd, and references are inconsistent throughout the clause—private dwellings in some places and just dwellings in others. 
 For the sake of consistency, amendments Nos. 133, 134 and 135 raise the same issue in relation to subsection (4), although the point is made by amendment No. 132. Amendment No. 136 is also an attempt at consistency. Subsections (3) and (4) refer to premises occupied as a dwelling, but subsection (7) uses only the word ''dwelling''. The amendment would create symmetry of language throughout the clause. It is the occupation, not any other characteristic, that seems to be the determining factor that makes it subject to the limitation. 
 Amendment No. 137 would restrict the right of entry by warrant to a dwelling in a non-emergency situation to during a reasonable time. It is sensible to have the power to get a warrant to obtain entry to a dwelling by force if necessary, but there is no obvious reason why such entry should not be limited so that it may occur only at a reasonable time. We do not want to create a regime under which entry can be effected by force under the power of a warrant in the middle of the night, unless there are compelling reasons and in emergencies. Why would it not be appropriate to add such a restriction?

Phil Hope: To address amendments Nos. 132 to 137, it may be helpful to set out the aim of the clause, although I know that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has already done so. Its purpose is formally to authorise activities that the fire service undertakes for the public good, which might otherwise amount to trespass. It provides several safeguards so that a proper balance is struck between the rights of occupiers of dwellings and the public interest in ensuring that the causes of fires are investigated quickly and effectively.
 Subsection (3) provides that an officer may not in exercising his powers of entry under subsection (1) demand admission as of right to premises that are occupied as a private dwelling without giving 24 hours' written notice to the occupier. The words ''as of right'' refer to the officer's powers under subsection (1), which makes amendment No. 132 unnecessary. 
 The term ''private'' is used to differentiate between private living accommodation, which a person should be able to occupy without undue interference, and common areas, to which others have access but form part of premises that might be considered to be dwellings. Those of us who have ever canvassed in flats with entry blocks know the difficulty of trying to gain 
 entry by pushing all the entry phone buttons, and that is why we want to ensure that fire officers are able to do so. Removal of ''private'' is therefore undesirable.

Philip Hammond: I was unaware that the common parts of a block of flats were construed as a dwelling. The Under-Secretary seems to be speaking authoritatively on the matter—[Hon. Members: ''Oh.''] I meant to say that he speaks more authoritatively than Ministers invariably do. I wonder whether he could tell the Committee from where that definition derives. Does it appear in a planning Act? I have never come across a distinction between private dwellings and dwellings.

Phil Hope: I hope that, by elaborating on and describing the terms in this debate, we are establishing the clarification that the hon. Gentleman requires, and that he therefore understands the difference between common areas—in flats and so on—and others. I will provide further clarification if any inspiration arrives.
 Amendment No. 136 would restrict application for a warrant to premises occupied as a dwelling. That would preclude application for premises no longer occupied as such but for which there may be an urgent need for the cause of fire to be ascertained, as provided for in subsection (4). It is therefore not sensible to limit the powers of a magistrate in such circumstances. 
 The term ''private'' was first used in the Fire Precautions Act 1971. Another example of shared accommodation might be a kitchen. My son's shared kitchen at university might be regarded not as private but as a common area, yet we would of course expect firefighters to be able to gain access if necessary.

Philip Hammond: The Under-Secretary says that of course we would expect the firefighter to be able to gain access, but I remind him that we are talking not about access in an emergency but routine access.

Phil Hope: For the purpose of an investigation.

Philip Hammond: Perhaps for the purpose of an investigation, but perhaps to obtain information needed for the discharge of a fire and rescue authority's functions—routine inspection. It is not so abundantly clear to me that a kitchen does not form part of someone's castle, to use the expression of the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), and ought to enjoy a measure of protection. In general, when there is no urgent need, we restrict the access of the authorities to private homes to times when it is convenient and by arrangement.

Phil Hope: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I want to emphasise the difference between private living accommodation, which an individual or family occupies, and shared or common areas. I have been trying to give helpful examples to illustrate why we needed to use the word ''private'' and not have it removed as according to his amendment.
 With regard to amendment No. 137, subsections (7) and (8) provide that a justice of the peace may authorise entry to dwellings without first giving 24 
 hours' notice in writing or where forcible entry is needed. Although those subsections allow the justice to authorise entry at any time, by force if necessary, their purpose is to provide a method of disapplying the restrictions on entry under subsections (3) and (4). However, they do not affect the basic provision provided in subsection (1) that the officer may enter only ''at any reasonable time''. The key point is that what is reasonable will vary according to circumstances, and be for the justice to determine. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. 
 Although the amendments have been helpful in teasing out some points for debate, I hope that, with those points of clarification, the hon. Gentleman will feel free to withdraw his amendment.

Philip Hammond: I accept what the Under-Secretary said about amendments Nos. 136 and 137. On reading the text with the benefit of his explanation, I can see the logic.
 On amendment No. 132, although I still think that the phrase ''as of right'' is unusual and not consistently used throughout the Bill—we could go right through the Bill and refer to the exercise of each power created ''as of right'' rather than in accordance with the powers granted under whichever subsection—I also accept that it does not matter that much. 
 The distinction between a private dwelling and a dwelling is genuine news to me. I will have to go away and try to understand that a bit more. I have taken on board the reference that the Minister has given and I shall try to understand the issue.

Richard Younger-Ross: To help with the hon. Gentleman's understanding, my recollection is that the Fire Precautions Act 1971 distinguishes private dwellings from ''common parts''. There are therefore clear definitions in legislation of private property and of common parts.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has obviously read that fascinating statute, which I cannot claim to have done. I certainly had not appreciated that the term ''dwelling'' encompassed two things: a private dwelling and common parts. Immediately into my mind come various provisions of different Acts dealing with totally extraneous matter, such as planning, in which that definition would sit uncomfortably. I will need to go away and have a look at that. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Powers of entry: supplementary

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 139, in
clause 45, page 22, line 8, after 'records', insert
'which he reasonably believes to be relevant to the investigation'.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 140, in 
clause 45, page 22, line 11, at end insert 'reasonably'. 
Amendment No. 141, in 
clause 45, page 22, line 12, at end insert 
 'for the purpose of the investigation'. 
Amendment No. 142, in 
clause 45, page 22, line 13, leave out from 'but' to third 'it' in line 14 and insert 'only if'. 
Amendment No. 143, in 
clause 45, page 22, line 16, leave out from 'but' to second 'it' in line 17 and insert 'only if'.

Philip Hammond: This clause deals with the powers of fire and rescue authority employees on premises that they have entered. The amendments would add a reasonableness test to the exercise of those powers.
 Amendment No. 139 would limit the powers over documents to those that the employee, the authorised entrant, reasonably believes to be relevant. At present, there is no restriction and the authorised officer can inspect and copy any documents or records on the premises or remove them from the premises. I cannot see any qualifying provision anywhere that they must be relevant or reasonably believed to be relevant to the investigation or other matter under way. 
 Amendments Nos. 140 and 141 refer to the powers of inspection and testing and, again, would limit those powers to matters reasonably considered necessary to the investigation. That does not seem to be over-restrictive or unexceptional and, bearing in mind the Minister of State's extreme caution in our discussion a few minutes ago about creating wider powers, I should have thought that he would want to be clear that the powers that can be exercised are directly relevant to the investigation or matter in hand. 
 Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 would change the limitation on power to remove items from the current provision in the Bill, which is a blanket permission to remove items or take samples from items with the restriction only that it should be not so as to destroy the item unless necessary, to a more general restriction that there should not be such a power unless it is necessary. As I read the clause, a sample can be taken or an item can be removed so long as it is not destroyed or damaged, unless it is necessary to do so. However, the unless-it-is-necessary test should apply to removing the item in the first place. That is what the amendments seek to ensure, and I look forward to the Under-Secretary's comments.

Phil Hope: Amendments Nos. 139 to 141 seek to clarify when the powers provided by the clause may be used. The amendments are unnecessary because the powers themselves are exercisable only for the purpose of investigating the cause of a fire or fire spread pursuant to the power of entry for that purpose provided by clause 44(1). The authorised person must act reasonably in any event because those powers are for the purpose of investigating the cause of a fire or fire spread. There is, therefore, no need to limit the power in the way intended by the hon. Gentleman.
 The effect of amendments Nos. 142 and 143 would be to remove the power to destroy or damage an article or substance while taking a sample or dismantling an article, which is provided by the words 
''not so as to destroy it or damage it''
 in subsection (2)(d). A fire investigator must be able to investigate a fire properly by dismantling an article and taking samples, and that may, of necessity, involve some damage. However, the clause provides that damage to property may be deliberately inflicted only when it is necessary, which, by virtue of clause 44, means that it is necessary for the purpose of the investigation. We are describing all those powers in relation to clause 44(1), which is for the purpose of fire investigation. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will accept that his amendments are unnecessary.

Philip Hammond: I am not a lawyer, but I can readily see the Under-Secretary's point. However, it is not immediately obvious to me that, if an entry under the powers in clause 44(1)(a) or (b) is effected, the actions taken thereafter are limited to those that are necessary in pursuance of the original cause of entry, which is what the Under-Secretary is saying. Entry having taking place under those powers, there is then a blanket built-in presumption that every action taken, even if specifically authorised in different terms, has implicitly within the authorisation the caveat: in so far as it is necessary for the purpose for which the original entry was effected. That is not self-evident, but the Under-Secretary made that point.
 I shall discuss the matter with the shadow Attorney-General, who will probably tell me that the Under-Secretary is right, even though his interpretation is not obvious to me. If I am told otherwise, the hon. Gentleman will hear from me in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46 - Powers of entry: notices

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 144, in
clause 46, page 23, line 17, at end insert
'(not being the dwelling in question)'.
 One of the hazards of the job on this side of the Committee is that it can become rather difficult to keep pace if the velocity gets too great. Clause 46 deals with notices for power of entry to a dwelling. It provides for notice to be given to the occupier of the dwelling, and subsection (3) deals with interpretation of the phrase ''proper address''. It is necessary to have an appropriate definition of that phrase in order to establish that notice has been properly served. In many cases, the former occupier of a dwelling that has become unoccupied because of a fire will provide the investigating fire officer with a forwarding address; for example, if he has gone to stay at a local hotel or with his granny. 
 My concern is with subsection (3)(b), which gives the definition 
''in any other case, his last known address.'' 
If the former occupier has not given a forwarding address for official contact, his last known address will likely be the address of the fire-damaged dwelling. It is not satisfactory to allow that a notice has been properly served simply by posting to the last known address, if that address is the fire-damaged premises. 
 There is already a power under subsection (4) to affix a notice to the subject premises as a fall-back if the person cannot be contacted in any other way. That is a perfectly reasonable last resort power. It is not acceptable to post the notice to the premises, as that is not the same as affixing it prominently. It will probably not be delivered or, if it is, depending on how badly damaged the premises are, it could get completely lost. It would not have the same effect. 
 The amendment would preclude proper service to the last known address of the former occupier if that address is the damaged premises. I may not have explained its effect very clearly—it is quite a tortuous issue—but I hope that the Under-Secretary appreciates my argument and has some sympathy with it.

Phil Hope: I understand the hon. Gentleman's intention. However, if we were to accept the amendment, it would give rise to undue complication in serving a notice. The formulation in subsection (3) is a common form used for the service of notice. The phrasing of the amendment would mean that if a dwelling were unoccupied and there was no forwarding address, the correct address could be an address that the individual lived at 40 or 50 years earlier. Alternatively, there could simply be no known address. I understand the hon. Gentleman's intention, and his point that subsection (4) deals with that by referring to pinning up a notice. However, his amendment would create a complication in dealing with matters under subsection (3) and, consequently, it would cause difficulties in tracking people down. It would result in complications involving serving notice on addresses at which people had lived many years before. That is not how he or I want to proceed, and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Philip Hammond: I accept entirely the first part of what the Under-Secretary said. He is quite right about the way in which the amendment is phrased: it would be absurd to have a notice served at an address that was known to be out of date. What he did not go on to say was, ''However, we acknowledge the issue that is being raised, and if the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment, we will find a better way of dealing with the problem.'' I still think that there is a problem. It clearly is not appropriate to serve the notice to a fire-damaged premises by post; it is appropriate to pin it on the fire-damaged premises. I urge the hon. Gentleman to think about that. If we believe that it is necessary for notice to be given, it cannot be given by post to an unoccupied, damaged premises. Obviously, there is a
 range of damage, but in an extreme case we will be talking about premises that are uninhabitable, and it would not be appropriate for notices to be served by post to them.

Richard Younger-Ross: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If, following a fire in a kitchen, there was a lot of flood damage to the rest of the property because of water from the hoses, which made it uninhabitable, there could be large areas of the property where powers of entry could do damage and where there would still be personal possessions.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is right. We can all envisage the situation: the premises have been damaged, and the person who was occupying them has moved out, but there are enough of his things there to make it reasonable that he should have notice if someone is going to come prodding around in his possessions. How do we get notice to him? In 90 cases out of 100, we will know where he is and it will not be a problem. In the other 10 cases, we can pin the notice on the premises. If he is a diligent occupier he will probably have a look very regularly to ensure that his semi-secure premises still have not been broken into or squatted in. However, it is not satisfactory to have notice served on him by post at those premises.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman is making a good point that was supported in an intervention, and although I did not say that we would go away and look at this, I am listening carefully to what he has to say. I will go away and consider the matter, but I still ask him to withdraw his amendment, which causes us difficulties.

Philip Hammond: I am glad that I persisted for the extra two minutes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to consider Government new clause 6—Powers of entry: notices given electronically.

Phil Hope: New clause 6 allows for documents to be served by electronic means such as e-mail. If that method were used, it would have to be by prior agreement with the person concerned. The new clause is necessary only because of an oversight during the drafting of the Bill. It is in line with the Government's policy on e-service of documents and with provisions in the Communications Act 2003. It would allow the occupier of premises who wished to be notified by electronic means to be so notified. The e-mail address to be used would have to be agreed by both parties prior to any document being served. That will be of use where a fire has occurred and the occupier is absent.
 I hope that, with those few words of clarification, the Committee will agree to the new clause. 
3.30 pm

Philip Hammond: We touched on this subject this morning and were steered away from it by your co-Chairman, Sir Nicholas.
 I have one question for the Under-Secretary. I understood that, by virtue of legislation that the House has already passed, any references to notices in writing can be construed as including electronic communications. What the new clause does is unexceptional and we have no problems with it, but why do we need it at all? I thought that in considering draft legislation, such provisions were routinely not detailed and that that was the purpose of introducing the Communications Act 2000, which provides that whenever the phrase ''in writing'' is used, it encompasses ''in electronic form''. Incidentally, he could confirm that new clause 6 encompasses the now rather Jurassic technology of faxing as well as the more up-to-date technology of e-mail, but can he also explain why we need it at all?

Phil Hope: First, I can confirm that the new clause includes faxing as well as other electronic forms of communication such as e-mail. The key point is proving legal service. I know that that was mentioned this morning when I was not in the Committee.
 Although the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the 2000 Act encompasses e-mails as a written form of communication, we wish to establish the conditions by which the process would occur, because it is a legal form of serving a notice. We wanted to include in the Bill the conditions under which such notice would be served, because it proves legal service of notice. That is why we wanted to include, over and above what is specified in the Act, the conditions in which such enforcement would be operated.

Philip Hammond: Is the Under-Secretary saying that the conditions in which electronic means of service can be used under clause 44 are different from those provided for more generally where electronic service of notice is taken to be good service of notice?

Phil Hope: I am saying that new clause 6 spells out some of the conditions relating to powers of entry and giving notice electronically. What we are describing is entirely consistent with provisions in other Acts, but we still need to say it because those provisions are of specific importance to the powers, and we wish to make clear what is required when notices are served in this way.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - False alarms of fire

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 145, in
clause 47, page 23, line 27, after 'fire', insert
', road traffic accident or other emergency in respect of which the authority has a function under section 9'.
 The clause headings are not part of the construction of the Bill, and the amendment seeks to widen the scope of the clause to include false alarms of road traffic accidents and other emergencies in respect of which fire and rescue authorities have functions under clause 9. That seems logical. 
 I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to point to provisions in other statutes that relate to false alarms in emergencies other than fire—if he cannot, we shall be in trouble—because there must be provisions to deal with those who raise false alarms in any emergencies. Even if there are provisions in other legislation, however, my view is that if we are trying to create a level playing field in which the role of the fire and rescue service is broadened to include not only fire, but road traffic accidents and other emergency work, and if we are saying that all of that work is core to the fire and rescue service's activity, it would be logical to phrase the false alarm provisions to cover all those areas. Will he explain why false alarms made to a fire and rescue authority in relation to those other emergencies should not also be covered by the clause?

Phil Hope: As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the amendment would extend the offence of knowingly giving or causing to be given a false alarm of fire to cover road traffic accidents or other emergencies. I can now allay his fears. Most false alarms are raised by telephone and, under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, an offence of sending by means of a public communications network a message that the sender knows to be false would be committed in such circumstances.

Hugo Swire: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that clarification. This morning, in considering clause 33(6), we debated at some length the difference between the application of the law to England and Wales and to Scotland, and we got a fairly ambiguous answer on that point. Will clarify whether the clause would apply equally to Scotland, as it would to England and Wales, in terms of penalties?

Phil Hope: I shall come back to the question of penalties. We have explored the same territory already, and it is a matter for the Scottish Executive to set penalties, but I shall return to the point in a moment.

Philip Hammond: Will the Minister give way?

Phil Hope: I shall return to that point when I get to it, but I shall give way.

Philip Hammond: Obviously, very many people, perhaps even in this place, will be alarmed to discover that it is an offence to give a message by means of a telephone that the giver knows to be false. I suspect that such provision would cover a great deal of the activity of a lot of our colleagues in this place. Quite apart from that, however, is not the logic of his case that alarms of fire would also be covered by the Communications Act 2003 and that all alarms given by means of telephonic communication are therefore
 dealt with? Either there is still a need for additional provisions for other emergencies or there is no need for the provision in respect of fire.

Phil Hope: I shall try to explain exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. In general, most false alarms are made by telephone. It is an offence under section 127 of the 2003 Act to send by means of a public communications network a message relating to fire that the sender knows to be false. The fire and rescue service works closely with telecommunications companies to reduce the number of hoax calls, and the number of such calls has been reduced from 111,000 in 1996 to 67,000 in 2002.
 In 1947, fewer people had telephones than today, and it was much more likely that people would shout ''Fire!'', rather than dial 999 and use a telephone to tell people that there was a fire. We therefore considered whether we continued to need the offence under section 31 of the Fire Services Act 1947, particularly as the number of prosecutions remained small, averaging about 30 a year. Some if not most of those offences will have been actions that could have been prosecuted under the Telecommunications Act 1984 or the 2003 Act. However, we concluded that the offence remained a useful tool in the fire and rescue service's ability to reduce antisocial activity, since there may be occasions on which a person raises a false alarm other than by telephone.

Richard Younger-Ross: I will try to be helpful to the Under-Secretary—I know that he does not like people to say that, because he does not believe that they ever are. I was thinking of a circumstance in which a person breaks a fire alarm within a building. That will send a message within the building that there is a fire, because it sets off the alarm signal, but it would not be covered by the 2003 Act. The message would be covered only if it went down a telephone line. Alternatively, there is the circumstance in which a Matilda-type person—from Hilaire Belloc's cautionary tale—shouts ''Fire!'' Shouting ''Fire!'' in a crowded place could cause panic.

Phil Hope: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his supportive words. The question whether we need to retain the offence of shouting ''Fire!'' is a given. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asks whether there is any logic in extending the power to other core functions such as those relating to road accidents or other emergencies, but in reality, alarms in such cases—and road traffic accidents in particular—are more likely to be dealt with initially by the police, who will call for a response from the fire and rescue service if they are satisfied of the need. That is why there is no purpose to be gained from the proposal.
 I was trying to imagine a circumstance in which someone standing in a street would shout that there was an accident when there was none. If they were to dial 999 to report a road traffic accident when none had occurred, the 2003 Act would cover it and the police would deal with it. I was trying to imagine our wanting to prosecute someone for saying that there 
 was an accident when none had occurred, but frankly, that does not happen, and we cannot see why we would need to legislate accordingly.

Philip Hammond: I will provide the Under-Secretary with an example. Let us suppose that someone standing on a tube platform hits the alarm button and yells into the speaker, ''Poison gas attack!'' Is that not precisely the kind of false alarm that could have dire consequences, the first response to which would come from the revamped fire and rescue service with its equipment specially designed and personnel specially trained to deal with such an incident?

Phil Hope: The offence is giving a false alarm to a fire and rescue authority. In the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has described, the person pressing a button on the underground would not be committing an offence in the relevant circumstances, so the provision would not apply. We understand his logic and the concerns that he has expressed, but we believe that the amendment is unnecessary. We must retain the ability to prosecute for false alarms that do not involve a telephone call in respect of a fire incident, but we do not need to extend that ability to other core functions, such as those relating to road traffic accidents or other emergencies.

Philip Hammond: As I read the clause more carefully, I see that the person must be running not only down the street, but to the fire station, because he has to give the false alarm to an employee of the fire and rescue authority or a person acting on his behalf. He has to run to the fire station, shouting ''Poison gas attack!'' In order to emphasise that there is no need to provide against the person and that that is a pretty unlikely scenario—I would not disagree with that view—the Under-Secretary has had to constrain the scope of the clause so narrowly that I wonder why it is there at all.
 Of the 30 prosecutions a year that take place under existing powers, how many would not be susceptible to prosecution under the 2003 Act? How many cases have there been in which people have literally run up to the fire station and banged on it shouting ''Fire!'' when there is no fire? If one is a hoax fire alarmer, doing it in person is probably not the optimum way to proceed.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that it is unnecessary to extend the measures to other core functions.

Richard Younger-Ross: I am reading the clause again. Initially, I did not support the comments of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, but I have come round to his way of thinking. The clause uses this phrase:
''gives or causes to be given''. 
Standing on a tube and shouting ''Chemical attack!'' or ''Poison gas!'' may not give a false alarm, but it would cause one to be given.

Phil Hope: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I maintain that if that alarm were set off in an underground station, it would be a matter to be dealt with by the
 railway authorities, so we are not, on this occasion, dealing with a false alarm. The point is that the person is not giving a false alarm, or causing a false alarm to be given, to a person acting on behalf of the fire and rescue authority.
 Clause 47 does not apply to Scotland. The equivalent provision in the 1947 Act will continue to apply to Scotland until it is replaced by legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament. I hope that that answers the question put to me earlier by the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire).

Richard Younger-Ross: The clause uses the words ''causes to be given''. I think that if someone stood in a cinema and shouted ''Chemical gas'' or whatever, someone would call the services, so that person's actions would directly have caused a false alarm to be given.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman describes a situation in which some one else telephones the control room to say that there is a difficulty. That is covered by the Communications Act 2003, as are most prosecutions of hoax calls.

Philip Hammond: The Under-Secretary must be wrong on that point. The person who, in good faith, makes the telephonic communication cannot be committing an offence under the Communications Act. It must be the person who, by his non-telephonic alarm, causes an innocent third party to make a guilty telephonic communication. I do not believe that he would be guilty under the Communications Act; it would be very interesting if he were.

Phil Hope: My understanding is that we are describing the situation in which an individual in an underground station sets off the alarm and another individual uses the telephone to ring the services. The person making the call is acting in good faith, but the person who has caused that person to act has committed an offence.

Philip Hammond: Under what?

Phil Hope: Under the Communications Act. Section 127(2) states:
 ''A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance'' 
 ''causes such a message to be sent''. 
The point is that in the situation that is being described—in which a person makes the phone call on the basis of hearing somebody else shouting a false alarm—that person can be prosecuted under the Act, because he has caused such a message to be sent. I hope that with that clarification of why the Communications Act covers those circumstances, the clause will be accepted and we can move on.

Philip Hammond: The Under-Secretary still has not addressed the question whether clause 47 is required. My original intention was to broaden the scope of the clause. He has done an effective job of convincing me that there is no need to broaden it, but in doing so he has almost completed the job of demolishing the case
 for having the clause at all. If, when he comes to write to me about the prosecutions that take place in respect of false alarms of fire—as I hope he will agree to—it turns out that all, or nearly all, are susceptible to prosecution under the Communications Act, he will finally have demolished the point of clause 47.
 Although that may seem a perverse outcome to seek from my point of view, one of the points that I made at the outset was that if the fire and rescue service is to have diverse responsibilities for fire, road traffic accidents and other emergencies, it is odd that fire is continually singled out and dealt with separately. Removing the clause altogether would address my underlying unease about its being there in the first place.

Phil Hope: I said earlier that some, if not most, of the 30 actions would have been prosecutable under the Telecommunications Act 1984 or the Communications Act. We want the provision to remain narrow because we believe that it is still a useful tool, especially in respect of antisocial behaviour and activity. If young people on the streets shout that there is a fire when there is not, the fire service needs to be able to deal with the matter firmly. We want it to retain that valuable tool.

Philip Hammond: The Under-Secretary said that some, if not most, of those 30 offences would be susceptible to prosecution under the Communications Act. If it is some and not most, he may have a case, but I suspect that it will turn out to be most, if not all. If the figures are available, I shall try to uncover them.
 The Under-Secretary may roll his eyes as much as he likes, but he has only himself to blame for a very effective defence against expanding the clause. He pointed out that the only circumstances in which the clause is relevant is when the individual runs to a fire station to make a false alarm of fire in person at the fire station. Merely running down the street shouting ''Fire! Fire!'' so that a neighbour calls the fire brigade is not good enough because that is susceptible to prosecution under the Communications Act, as the Under-Secretary made clear. Going into the local police station and getting the police to call the fire brigade is susceptible to prosecution under the Communications Act. As I understood the Under-Secretary's explanation, anything other than a direct non-electronic transmission of a message to an employee of a fire and rescue authority—that is, anything other than being in earshot of the fire and rescue authority employee while crying ''Fire!''—would not give any reason to prosecute under the clause. In those circumstances, I wonder whether the Under-Secretary is right to assert that it should remain. 
 I shall withdraw the amendment, but I am disappointed that the Under-Secretary will not write to me because I always enjoy receiving letters after Committee sittings. I shall have to try to obtain the information from another source and see whether it is some if not most, or most if not all. 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48 - Payments in respect of advisory bodies

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond: I have a quick question. Clause 48 authorises payments in respect of advisory bodies. The Minister of State kindly wrote to me—I assume that he copied that letter to Committee members—giving an explanation and putting some flesh on what was said during Committee about the scaling back or otherwise of the fire service inspectorate. In a sense, the functions of advisory bodies will complement some of the functions of the fire service inspectorate, so it seems appropriate to ask the Under-Secretary for some sort of estimate or indicative budget of the Secretary of State's expected expenditure on advisory bodies as part of his overall structure with the newly restructured fire service inspectorate at the heart of it.

Phil Hope: The clause enables the Secretary of State to make payments to advisory bodies in respect of their expenses incurred in providing advice on matters connected with the Bill. As signalled in the White Paper, various new advisory bodies have been set up to advise Ministers and they will have to be serviced. For example, the practitioners forum is chaired and serviced by the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association—CACFOA—which may also be asked to carry out basic research work as part of collating evidence for providing advice. The clause would allow payments to be made to CACFOA as well as to other advisory bodies should the need arise.
 On the anticipated budget, these are new bodies which are just beginning their work and they have already started to carry out various studies. The practitioners forum, for example, is now doing a study on responses to automatic fire alarms that go off. There will be such activities but I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman at this point exactly what the budget will be. However, I will be happy to write to him with that information. He did not get a letter on the last debate, but he can getter a letter on this one. We can give him some indication of the costs and the budget. I hope that he understands how important it is to be able to service these new advisory bodies because of the work that they do and the expenses that they may occur in doing it. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 49 and 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 51Amendments

Amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond: I cannot let clauses 51 and 52 pass without comment. I sought to table amendments to both of them because I do not understand why the conventional language has been changed. There is nothing offensive about the statement in clause 51 that
 ''Schedule 1 contains minor and consequential amendments'' 
because that is indubitably the case, but it does not state that schedule 1 shall have effect. In every Bill that I have dealt with, schedules are introduced into the legislation by a clause that specifically gives effect to them. 
 The same point applies to clause 52. It is one of the most bizarre clauses that I have ever come across. It states: 
 ''Schedule 2 contains repeals.''

Nicholas Winterton: Order. That clause must be referred to in passing only, because I hope that we will address it in a few moments.

Philip Hammond: I was hoping to draw the Committee's attention to a single point that applies to clauses 51 and 52 to obviate the need for any further discussion of clause 52.
 A mere statement of fact does not do anything very interesting; clause 51(a) could state ''the sea contains fish.'' I am concerned that these schedules might not become part of the Bill merely by a statement that refers to what is contained within them. Why does clause 51 not state that schedule 1 shall have effect, s well as that it contains minor and consequential amendments, and why does clause 52 not contain a provision that states that schedule 2 shall have effect? As far as I am aware, that has always been the conventional form.

Phil Hope: I will not deal with clauses 51 and 52 in detail because I understand that the hon. Gentleman is happy with the idea that they are included in the legislation. He is concerned about their effect. The style in which a Bill is written is a matter for parliamentary counsel. It appears that the hon. Gentleman is troubled by the revolutionary nature of the style that he keeps on identifying. We are content that clauses 51 and 52 have the required legal effects, although he has quarrels with the wording and whether the clauses do what he wants them to do.

Philip Hammond: That begs the question why I have spent the past seven years voting on clauses that give effect to schedules. I am astonished that the Under-Secretary has nothing more substantial to say about that. It appears to me that there is a big gap, but if that is all he has to say we will let the matter pass and I will try to find out more in due course.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Schedule 1Minor and consequential Amendments

Minor and consequential Amendments

Phil Hope: I beg to move amendment No. 169, in
schedule 1, page 34, line 13, at end insert—
 '33A The Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 is amended as follows.
 33B (1) Schedule 2 (official pensions) is amended as follows.
 (2) For paragraphs 16 and 16A substitute—
 ''16 A pension payable by a Secretary of State in accordance with a scheme brought into operation under section 33 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.
 16A A pension which is payable—
(a) by a Secretary of State under regulations made under section 24 of the Superannuation Act 1972; and
(b) to or in respect of a person in respect of whose service a payment may be made under a scheme brought into operation under section 33 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.''
 (3) For paragraph 44 substitute—
 ''44 A pension payable by a fire and rescue authority in accordance with a scheme brought into operation under section 33 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.'''.
 (4) Omit paragraph 45.'.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 170, 171, 177 and 178.

Phil Hope: The amendments remedy an oversight in the drafting of the Bill. We need to ensure that pensions paid under the Fire Services Act 1947, which are increased annually to reflect the retail prices index, continue to be increased when the Bill comes into effect. Increases are made under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971, which accordingly must be amended to refer to the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton: I call Mr. Philip Holland—I am sorry, Hammond.

Philip Hammond: Sir Nicholas, I could almost think that you were doing it on purpose.
 First, I have a small and, one might almost say, stylistic question for the Under-Secretary.

Phil Hope: Here we go.

Philip Hammond: Yes, here we go. In amendment No. 169 we see, in new section 16, the phrase,
 ''A pension payable by a Secretary of State'', 
and again, in new section 16A, 
 ''A pension which is payable . . . by a Secretary of State''. 
I have always understood the Secretary of State to be a single and indivisible entity, and legislation invariably refers to ''the Secretary of State'', not distinguishing between one Secretary of State and another. Perhaps I have got that wrong, but I should be grateful for an explanation for the reference to ''a Secretary of State'', as if one can pick a random Secretary of State wandering down Whitehall. 
 I understood what the Under-Secretary said, and it is clear from a quick reading of the amendments why there needs to be such a provision, but I want to ask him about the use of clause 35 to continue a scheme under the 1947 Act. The amendment refers to a scheme 
 under clause 33, but not to an order under clause 35 continuing a pension scheme made under the 1947 Act, now to be abolished. 
 My understanding is that all the references to the 1947 Act are deleted by the schedule. Therefore, a scheme that is continued by virtue of an order made under clause 35 would not be subject to the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 and the Superannuation Act 1972 unless an additional amendment were made that referred specifically to the inclusion of schemes made under clause 35 as well as clause 33. I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary addressed that point as well as the one about the Secretary of State.

Phil Hope: They said that it would be a great glory to become a Minister: one would conduct affairs of state, run the country and do a range of different things that Ministers can get involved with. I have reached the dizzy heights of ministerial duties: I am now discussing whether to substitute ''the'' for ''a'' in the schedule.
 The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that we would normally refer to ''the Secretary of State'', but the 1971 Act uses ''a'', so the amendment is consistent with that. The hon. Gentleman may wish to go back to the Act to establish why it was worded in that way. Fortunately, I was not a Minister in 1971.

Nick Raynsford: That was a Conservative Government.

Phil Hope: Indeed, it was.
 On the hon. Gentleman's wider point, I can tell him that clause 35 may continue existing provisions. That is what we must ensure and why we have tabled the amendments. If that explanation is not satisfactory, I will be happy, given the complexity of the point that he has raised, to write to him with further clarification, if that would be helpful.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary. I am glad that I am not demented or linguistically paranoid and that he can confirm that ''the Secretary of State'' is the normal terminology. I am sure that Ministers in 1971, had they been asked, would also have replied that the matter was nothing to do with them but was the responsibility of the draftsmen. It is nice to know that draftsmen who go off in a revolutionary direction, as they obviously did in 1971, can come back to the straight and narrow: we have been saying ''the Secretary of State'' for most of the 30 years since.
 I am not sure that the Under-Secretary has answered the point about clause 35. I understand entirely the need to ensure that the existing scheme, which can be continued by an order made under that clause, would have the same protections that the amendment gives to schemes under clause 33. However, there must be some process by which that will happen automatically. I cannot find one; there seems to be a gap. It seems that a scheme that owes its existence to an order under clause 35 will not be 
 included as subject to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 and the Superannuation Act 1972. I may be wrong, or there may be a reason why that is the case. 
 My experience has been that it is almost impossible to deal with schedules making with consequential and minor amendments on the hoof in Committee. The situation is so complicated that there are invariably cross-references through layers of previous legislation. Perhaps the Under-Secretary would be good enough to write to me. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 170, in 
schedule 1, page 34, line 14, leave out 
 'to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971'. 
No. 171, in 
schedule 1, page 34, line 21, at end insert— 
 'Superannuation Act 1972 (c. 11) 
 In section 24(1)(a) of the Superannuation Act 1972 (compensation for loss of office), for ''in relation to whom a Scheme may be made in accordance with section 26 of the Fire Services Act 1947 (Firemen's Pension Scheme)'' substitute ''in respect of whose service payments may be made under a scheme brought into operation under section 33 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004''.'.—[Phil Hope.]

Phil Hope: I beg to move amendment No. 172, in
schedule 1, page 44, line 37, at end insert—
 '84A The Local Government Act 1999 is amended as follows.'.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 173 to 175, 179 and 180.

Phil Hope: The amendments will ensure that the Welsh Assembly is able to specify operation of the best-value regime for fire and rescue authorities in Wales, in line with the Government's commitment to devolve responsibility for the service in Wales, as set out in the White Paper. The amendments will bring Welsh combined fire authorities within the definition of a best-value authority as defined in section 1 of the Local Government Act 1999. Amendments Nos. 179 and 180 are a consequence of bringing Welsh combined fire authorities into the best-value definition, and they will repeal a now superfluous section of the 1999 Act.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 173, in 
schedule 1, page 44, line 38, leave out 
 'of the Local Government Act 1999'. 
No. 174, in 
schedule 1, page 44, line 43, at end insert— 
 '85A In section 29(2)(a) (modifications of Part 1 for Wales: authorities which are not best value authorities) omit ''or (e)''.'. 
No. 175, in 
schedule 1, page 46, line 21, leave out from 'general)' to end of line 25 and insert
 'omit paragraph (b) and the word ''or'' immediately preceding it.'.—[Phil Hope.] 
 Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 - Repeals

Phil Hope: I beg to move amendment No. 176, in
schedule 2, page 47, line 19, at end insert—
 'London County Council (General Powers) Act 1949 (c lv) Section 51.'. 
 The amendment will repeal section 51 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1949. That provision gave London county council powers to permit employees of the London fire brigade to be employed permanently or temporarily at a training institution, as may be desired by the Secretary of State. It also dealt with superannuation issues consequential on such an employment. We have confirmed with lawyers that for the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority that this provision was never extended to the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority following abolition of the Greater London council. This provision is, therefore, spent, and may be repealed. 
Amendment agreed to.
 Amendments made: No. 177, in schedule 2, page 47, line 22, at end insert—  'Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (c. 56) Section 15. In Schedule 2, paragraph 45.'.
 No. 178, in  schedule 2, page 47, leave out lines 24 to 27.
 No. 179, in  schedule 2, page 48, line 4, at end insert—   'Local Government Act 1999 (c. 27) In section 29(2)(a), the words ''or (e)''.'. 
 No. 180, in schedule 2, page 48, line 14, column 2, at end insert— 'In section 101(7), paragraph (b) and the word ''or'' immediately preceding it.'. —[Phil Hope.] 
 Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 53 - Pre-commencement consultation

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 148, in
clause 53, page 24, line 32, after 'force', insert
'but after this Act has received Royal Assent'.
 The clause legitimises consultation that takes place before the relevant provision of the Bill comes into force. I have always thought that this is a slightly dubious process, but let us gloss over that for the moment. This is a probing amendment, because I hope that the Minister of State will tell me that purpose of the clause is to ensure that such consultation, taking 
 place before the relevant clause commences, should not take place before the Royal Assent is granted to the Act. 
 The amendment may be inelegantly worded, but the purpose is clear: we must not get into a situation where a consultation or discussion that took place last year, the year before or 10 years ago can be used in support of a claim that adequate consultation has taken place in respect of some matter dealt with in this Bill. 
 We reluctantly concede the principle of pre-commencement consultation in the interests of speeding things up, but it must be after the Act has received the Royal Assent. The context in which a consultation takes place will be relevant to the responses that are received, and the consultees must be able to see that context. That means that the Act of Parliament must be finished, even if the relevant section has not yet commenced. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that no consultation prior to the Royal Assent would be treated as being a pre-commencement consultation for the purposes of this clause. It will then be possible for me to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Raynsford: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that not only will I disappoint him by not giving him the assurance that he wants, but I will tell him that his proposition is preposterous—a word that he finds particularly attractive.
 I remind him that a year ago we spent a great deal of time on the Local Government Bill. Had we not begun the consultation necessary to allow the prudential borrowing regime to come into effect before the Bill received Royal Assent, local authorities would not have that facility this April. I will not go into the reasons why that Bill took so long to go through Parliament, but the proposition that there should be no consultation before Royal Assent, and therefore that various benefits, which would be very considerable to those members of the public, institutions and bodies interested in the outcome of our discussions, could not be introduced because of strict adherence to a formal rule, is wholly undesirable. 
 As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are currently consulting on the charging regime. We issued a consultation document, and it is perfectly proper that that consultation should take place now, so that as and when the legislation takes effect we will not risk the hiatus between the old and new regimes which he highlighted. If there were no prior consultation, there would inevitably be a hiatus. 
 The hon. Gentleman's concept is wrong, although I can understand his genuine concern that we should not treat as relevant consultation that took place 10 years ago. I assure him that we have no intention of doing so. The consultation that is relevant to the Bill is that taking place while the Bill is going through Parliament. The implications of the consultation are well known and understood by the parties involved, and I see no merit in the amendment. I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw it.

Philip Hammond: Since the Minister has called me preposterous, I shall say that he is displaying the fantastic arrogance that we have got used to from the Government: because he is doing this and can see nothing wrong with the way that he is doing it, he can see no purpose for the amendment. He recognises that it would be outrageous if obsolete consultation were deemed to satisfy a requirement in the Bill to consult.
 So often, when we seek reassurance about a provision, Ministers say, ''Well, there's no need. Don't worry because we are going to consult.'' However, they want to consult before the Bill is in its final form—before it has been through the other place and is perhaps further amended. The context in which responses to consultation will be given will depend on the legislative framework in which that consultation takes place. 
 I find the Minister's bogus inability to understand the concern rather distressing. Of course he says that he will not produce consultation that happened 10 years ago—it did not cost him anything to give the Committee that commitment—but what about consultation that is six months, a year or 18 months old? There is no obvious cut-off point, so we are left to trust the Minister. The same old phrase, ''Trust me, I'm a Minister in this Government,'' is not a principle to which I wish to adhere. 
 I am very disappointed that the Minister did nothing but pour scorn on a well-intentioned amendment, but as I have taken some pity on the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), who is anxious to move on, I shall not press the amendment to a Division. I urge the Minister to consider carefully in future Bills whether we should have such retrospective legislation—as we had in the regional assemblies Bill—because that is what it is. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 54 to 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 - Wales

Phil Hope: I beg to move amendment No. 168, in
clause 59, page 26, line 6, at end insert—
 '(1A) In its application to Wales, section 21(6) has effect with the omission of the words ''and lay before Parliament''.
 (1B) In its application to Wales, section 24 has effect as if for ''report to Parliament'' there were substituted ''publish a report''.'.
 The amendment seeks to ensure that an appropriate procedure applies to the fire and rescue service framework for Wales. Laying the framework before the UK Parliament, and reporting to Parliament on authorities' compliance and on the steps taken by the National Assembly for Wales to ensure it, would cut across the overall intent of the clause. That is to ensure that the powers exercisable by the Secretary of State for English fire and rescue authorities are exercisable by the National Assembly for Wales for Welsh fire and rescue authorities. The amendment therefore deletes 
 the references to Parliament in clause 21(6) and clause 24, leaving the method of publication and report to the discretion of the National Assembly for Wales. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Richard Younger-Ross: Does not the Under-Secretary think that the devolved powers that he has given to Wales should also be devolved to the elected English regional assemblies when we have them?

Philip Hammond: I have a different question for the Under-Secretary. I understand entirely the intention of the clause, but it substitutes a reference to the National Assembly for Wales for every reference to the Secretary of State throughout parts 1 to 6 of the Bill, including clause 33 on pensions. When we dealt with that in the context of Scotland, we noted that pensions were not a devolved matter but remained a United Kingdom matter to be dealt with by the Secretary of State. I am therefore bound to ask why there is not a ''saving to'' provision in the clause which leaves the reference to the Secretary of State in clause 33 on pensions.

Phil Hope: In response to the hon. Member for Teignbridge, I can tell the Committee that the clause concerns powers relating to Wales and not to other regions in England. I understand that there is a new clause on which that debate may arise, and the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his points then.
 On pensions, which are a reserved matter, as clause 33 makes clear, I am not certain what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge seeks to establish.

Philip Hammond: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. My reading of clause 59(1) is that, in every case where the words ''Secretary of State'' appear in parts 1 to 6 of the Bill, it has to be read in relation to Wales as though the words said ''National Assembly for Wales''. That would mean that the role of the Secretary of State in clause 33 is, in effect, devolved to the National Assembly. That clause has to be read as allowing the National Assembly to do all the things that it is proposed that the Secretary of State should do. My understanding was that that was not the intention, and that pensions in Wales, Scotland and England were to be dealt with by the Secretary of State from Whitehall as a reserved matter for the whole of the UK, or at least its three mainland nations.

Phil Hope: On clause 33, it is my understanding that the powers will be devolved by a subsequent transfer of functions order. I can say no more than that. I hope that it gives the Committee an explanation. If matters are not clear, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Philip Hammond: Is the Under-Secretary saying that responsibility for matters dealt with under clause 33 is to be devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, in
 the case of Wales, but that it is not to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament in the case of Scotland? If that is the case, I would find it very peculiar.

Phil Hope: The power to make a scheme will be devolved to the Scottish Executive; that is clear. In regard to Wales, the power will be devolved by a subsequent transfer of functions order, so there will not be the contradiction to which the hon. Gentleman alludes.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge wish to reply?

Philip Hammond: I do not want to take up any more of the Committee's time, Sir Nicholas. I am sure that I do not understand that explanation at all, and I am equally sure that the Under-Secretary does not either. Perhaps clarification will come to us in due course.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 59, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 60 and 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 6 - Powers of entry: notices given electronically

'(1) This section applies if the notice required by section 44(3)(b) or (4) is transmitted to the person to whom it is required to be given (''the recipient'')—
(a) by means of an electronic communications network (within the meaning given by section 32 of the Communications Act 2003 (c. 21)), or
(b) by other means but in a form that nevertheless requires the use of apparatus by the recipient to render it intelligible.
 (2) The transmission has effect as a delivery of the notice to the recipient only if he has indicated to the fire and rescue authority on whose behalf the transmission is made his willingness to receive a notice under section 44 transmitted in the form and manner used.
 (3) An indication to a fire and rescue authority for the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) must be given to the authority in any manner it requires;
(b) may be a general indication or one that is limited to notices of a particular description;
(c) must state the address to be used and must be accompanied by any other information which the authority requires for the making of the transmission;
(d) may be modified or withdrawn at any time by a notice given to the authority in any manner it requires.
 (4) If the making of the transmission has been recorded in the computer system of the fire and rescue authority on whose behalf it is made, it must be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the transmission—
(a) was made to the person recorded in that system as receiving it;
(b) was made at the time recorded in that system as the time of delivery;
(c) contained the information recorded on that system in respect of it.'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. 
New Clause 2Operational and training duties

Operational and training duties

'The Secretary of State may give direction for—
(a) A fire and rescue authority to compensate employers who release employees to undertake operational and training duties under the retained duty system.
(b) A fire and rescue authority to expand monies on awards to employers in acknowledgement for their support of their community in releasing employees to undertake operational and training duties under the retained duty system.
(c) For all public sector employers where practical to support their employees who undertake operational and training duties under the retained duty system.'.—[Richard Younger-Ross.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Richard Younger-Ross: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I shall be exceedingly brief so that we can try to fit in the other new clauses as well. Essentially, there are three probing provisions, which I hope will elicit a response from the Under-Secretary. Paragraph (a) is intended to find out to whether there is any possibility that fire authorities will be able to make payments to employers to encourage retained firefighters. Are there any circumstances in which that could occur? Paragraph (b) is probably less controversial, and is designed to find out whether fire authorities would be empowered to make awards to employers who had been particularly good in allowing large numbers of staff to become retained firefighters. 
 Paragraph (c), which might be easier for the Under-Secretary to deal with, relates to what he would do to encourage public sector employers, and in particular local authorities, in that respect. They can be reluctant to allow people to become retained firefighters. What actions would he propose to encourage, push, shove or cajole them—we are, after all, talking about the same Department, the ODPM—into allowing people to become retained firefighters?

Philip Hammond: I support the hon. Gentleman's underlying intention in once again looking for ways to address the problem of recruiting and retaining enough retained firefighters. One aspect of that is incentivising potential retained firefighters. Another aspect is ensuring that, as with the Territorial Army, their employers are willing to co-operate in a scheme that may bring some indirect benefits to their operations but will certainly bring some inconveniences. We should not rule out the possibility of compensating employers.
 However, I take issue—I know that it is not the hon. Gentleman's principal purpose in raising these points—with the idea that the Secretary of State could give directions. I hope that what the hon. Gentleman meant was that the Secretary of State might commit the fire authorities to doing these things. I certainly favour making the arrangements at the local level. The situation varies in different parts of the country and different authorities. I would favour the maximum 
 discretion for fire authority employers to put together schemes with other local employers to release retained firefighters.

Phil Hope: The new clause is intended to be supportive of the retained section of the fire service. However, the financial implications for the fire and rescue services of paragraphs (a) and (b) would be considerable, particularly in areas, not least Devon, where a large proportion of the fire cover is provided by retained staff. While the proposal in paragraph (c) would not have a direct financial impact for fire and rescue authorities, the Government believe that the support of public sector employers should not be singled out as the subject of specific legislation in this regard.
 However, the Committee will be aware that on 15 December 2003 I announced a comprehensive review of the issues affecting the retained section of the service. Indeed, I did so at a meeting of the Retained Firefighters Union. That review is now under way and will examine the many factors that contribute to the recruitment and retention challenges faced by the retained section of the fire and rescue service. In addition to the issues that the hon. Member for Teignbridge raised, they will include equality and diversity, public awareness, deployment, community participation, the role, reward and conditions of service, and—I emphasise ''and''— engagement with the business community. The team that we have established will look at ways to engage effectively with a wide range of employers, both private and public, to engender better understanding of the retained firefighter's role and the benefits to the employer of encouraging and supporting their staff in undertaking this role. 
 The review team includes members from a variety of stakeholder groups, including the Local Government Association, CACFOA and the RFU. The review team will seek advice as appropriate.

Philip Hammond: I am listening carefully to the Under-Secretary, but I did not hear him mention any representatives of employers organisations. As a crucial part of the process is engaging the employer community, can he explain why they are not engaged in it?

Phil Hope: The employers will be fully engaged in the process. It is essential that we understand the motives, and the reluctance, of private and public employers whom we wish to attract into releasing their staff to become retained firefighters. Therefore, the review team is seeking advice from a wide range of public and private sector employers and the national bodies that represent them.
 The hon. Gentleman was concerned, as was the hon. Member for Teignbridge, about the reluctance of public sector employers. We have specifically included in the review team the Local Government Association. In addition, we have included the practitioners forum and the fire business and community forum, which was established deliberately to engage with the business community in fire safety matters.

Philip Hammond: The Under-Secretary answered my last intervention with a classic display of bluster, and I want to be sure that I have understood. There is not included in the review team any representative of employers organisations. Is that correct?

Phil Hope: No, it is not correct. The LGA is in the review team. It is a representative body of employers in the public sector—indeed, in the whole of local government.
 The implication behind the hon. Gentleman's questioning is that we are not taking into account the views of private sector or other public sector employers. I can tell him categorically that that is not the case. We are working closely throughout and we have established a business and community forum to provide a voice specifically for private and public sector businesses, which will be consulting widely. The work needs to continue at a much more mundane level. We need to understand in practical terms what will assist local employers, public and private, to release staff for what we believe will be of benefit not only to the community but to employers from their retained staff who take part in such activities. We shall seek advice from a wider community and other relevant bodies to identify a range of solutions for the changes. The CBI is directly represented on the business and community forum and we have plugged right into the business community. 
 The retained review team will submit its report, with recommendations for future action, to the forum this summer. The report will include an implementation strategy and programme for delivery. As the review is taking place and the consultation that the review team is undertaking will take detailed account of many of the hon. Member for Teignbridge's concerns about what works, I hope that he will withdraw the new clause.

Richard Younger-Ross: It is nice to hear that there is a review team. Whether I welcome it will depend on what it says at the end rather than the first bit of the process.
 The first paragraph of the new clause refers to costs. An employee may sometimes miss more than 50 days, 100 days or whatever in a year. In such circumstances, will there be a threshold at which a payment may be made? Perhaps that could be fed to the review team rather than a great spending commitment that I am sure would be thrown back at me very quickly. I am not proposing that.

Jim Murphy: Oh go on.

Richard Younger-Ross: I am not making a large spending commitment and that is on the record.
 I do not believe that paragraph (b) would cost a lot. It is just a matter of recognition and there could be a cup, a shield, £100, £200 or whatever. There are low-cost ways of recognition and they could be suggested to the review team. I was not asking for something on local authorities to be in the Bill. As the Minister is in 
 the ODPM, I hoped that he would say he could consider the matter in another way, using other powers to try to encourage local authorities. 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion, and clause, withdrawn.

New Clause 4 - Emergency medical care

No. NC4, to move the following Clause—
 '(1) A fire and rescue authority must make provision for the purpose of:—
(a) delivering emergency medical care to persons seriously injured by fire or the effects of fire, and
(b) delivering emergency medical care to persons injured in road traffic accidents, and
(c) providing other emergency medical care
in situations where employees of the authority are first on the scene of an incident in relation to which the authority has functions under sections 7, 8 and 9.
 (2) The level of provision that must be made under (1) above is that which it is reasonable to make having regard to:—
(a) the number of such incidents to which the authority is required to respond;
(b) the typical period of time during which the authority's employees are at the scene before the arrival of specialist medical or paramedical personnel, and
(c) the conclusions of the consultation referred to in subsection (3).
 (3) A fire and rescue authority must consult each NHS Ambulance Trust which has responsibility for responding to emergency incidents within its area not less than once in every two years about the level of provision it is appropriate for the authority to make in accordance with subsection (1).'.—[Mr. Hammond.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The new clause would introduce a requirement on fire and rescue authorities to make provision for medical co-response. I do not expect the Government to accept it, but I hope that the Minister of State will be able to say something about how the Government will ensure that fire authorities take seriously the intention that medical co-response should be available so that medical assistance can be given, particularly in less populated areas where there may be a time lapse between the arrival of the first emergency service at the scene of an incident and back-up from other emergency services. 
 The new clause is drafted to mirror the obligations imposed by clauses 6, 7 and 8, and I tried to word it in such a way that it would not impose unreasonable burdens by making it clear that there are tests for a level of reasonable provision to provide emergency medical care at the scene of a fire, road accident or other emergency. There is also provision for consultation with the local NHS ambulance trusts to enable proper cross-service preparation of the plans and an operation of the service that is as seamless as possible. 
 In view of the time, it would not be helpful for me to go into the new clause in any more detail. I acknowledge that the Government are unlikely to 
 accept it in its entirety but look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how they will incentivise the service.

Nick Raynsford: I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman introduced his new clause. I hope that these brief remarks will give him the assurances that he is seeking and enable him to withdraw the new clause.
 The new duty under new clause 4 would be limited to what a fire and rescue authority judged to be reasonable but would still impose a new core duty to provide medical assistance in certain incidents. I recognise the intention of the new clause, but the Government believe that this proposed extension of fire and rescue authority duties would be premature. 
 The draft fire and rescue authority national framework makes it clear that the aim of emergency response is to reduce deaths and the number and severity of injuries. The use by some fire and rescue authorities of defibrillator equipment is an example of how adapting services can improve outcomes and save lives. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the national framework asks all fire and rescue authorities to explore the benefits of working with others and of implementing first and/or co-responder schemes. Of course, that will be the subject of consultation, possibly—if I may say this in a slightly barbed way—before Royal Assent. I am sure that he will appreciate the benefit of taking speedy action on that matter. 
 First responder and co-responder schemes are very welcome and should be encouraged. The powers available under clause 11 ensure that a fire and rescue authority can equip itself and respond to incidents. However, we do not believe that it would be appropriate at this time to make that type of activity a core function. It is a core function of the ambulance service and should remain its primary responsibility, despite the fact that there are huge advantages from such schemes that ensure, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, that the fire and rescue service is able to undertake life-saving work if it is first on the scene and is suitably equipped. We look forward to receiving the responses of fire and rescue authorities and others to the national framework. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the new clause in the light of those comments.

Philip Hammond: I was very interested in what the Minister said. I noted his careful use of the word ''premature'', which implied, at least to my ever optimistic mind, that he believes that at some time in the future the service will have evolved sufficiently to incorporate such activities as a core part of the role of fire and rescue authorities.
 I fret somewhat that by not making such a duty a core function, the Minister sends a subliminal message to fire and rescue authorities, some of which may be disinclined to extend their horizons unless they are absolutely required to, particularly at a time when they are under a great deal of pressure, as they are now. He focused on the considerable results that have been achieved through the use of defibrillators. It slightly concerns me that in political circles defibrillators have 
 become almost synonymous with medical attention by the fire service. There are many types of medical support that have nothing to do with cardiac arrest and that might be just as effective, if not more so, that the fire service could appropriately deliver at the scene of an incident if it is first on the scene. I fully appreciate why defibrillators have taken the headlines, but it is important that we do not get carried away with one particular fashionable trend. 
 I hope that the Minister will ensure that the message gets across to fire and rescue authorities that, although such a function might not formally be a core responsibility, it is an important and developing area alongside the non-conventional work that fire and rescue authorities will be doing. I hope that the Minister's carefully chosen words that it would be premature for it to become a core responsibility at this stage are widely understood and heard, so that any fire and rescue authorities that were thinking of not treating the need for medical co-response with significant seriousness think about this debate as the start of a path—hopefully—to it doing so. 
 I will not start quoting international comparisons, but examples from countries where the fire service typically provides the first medical response suggest that quite a lot could be done that would be useful in saving lives and reducing serious harm to individuals through having a fire service that is equipped to intervene in such a way at the scene. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5 - Regional Management Board

No. NC5, to move the following Clause:—
 '(1) The Secretary of State will make an order for the formation of regional management boards.
 (2) A board constituted under subsection (1) shall consist of elected representation from the authorities.
 (3) The Secretary of State shall make payments to authorities for the formation of such boards established by subsection (1).'.—[Dr. Pugh.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

John Pugh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The clause endeavours to set up a new creature: a regional management board. I am loth to set up unnecessary bodies, but I think that we all accept that certain decisions will be made on a regional basis. Indeed, already in certain regions decisions are made in that way in some circumstances. Such bodies already exist. 
 The new clause is, if anything, a plea for democratic accountability and control, and follows the model of fire authorities, which by and large comprise nominees of councils, which in turn are elected by ordinary citizens. I must say that there is a rooted bias in my nature against leaving an opportunity for a new quango to emerge. In addition to taking part in these 
 scintillating debates this afternoon, I have appeared on BBC 2 to harangue the regional development agency in my area. One of its great vices is that it has committed itself to spending on several projects on which it can no longer deliver. I understand that its director of finance is leaving the agency shortly, and it is creating untold troubles and problems. All the new clause endeavours to do is to establish that certain decisions will be made on a regional basis; that when they are made by quangos they are not made well; and that there is a democratic deficit to address. I hope that the Minister will respond to that.

Nick Raynsford: I was hesitant in rising to my feet only because I was wondering whether any other Members wished to speak.
 The new clause is neither necessary nor conducive to the objectives of the hon. Members for Teignbridge and for Southport. I remind the Committee of the approach that we are taking, which is spelled out in the draft national framework. We have identified six broad functions that we believe will be more efficiently and effectively delivered at regional level. In partnership with the Local Government Association, we are asking all fire and rescue authorities to set up voluntary regional management boards to take the six topics forward. That they are doing, and I am pleased to inform the Committee that the LGA has confirmed to us that all authorities in England have resolved to establish an RMB by 1 April. 
 The hon. Member for Southport suggests a change of course that would, effectively, halt the progress already under way, and put it on hold until after the Bill receives Royal Assent. That seems neither operationally sensible or, in the case of collaborative procurement, for example, in the interests of the council tax payer.

Philip Hammond: The Minister has just noted that he has received information from the LGA that all authorities have established, or made plans to establish, RMBs. Is he satisfied that the RMBs that have been established are to his liking? Do they meet his requirements?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman must hold his horses, because we are talking about a process. I am delighted to report that progress has been made to the first stage, which is to agree to establish the RMBs. Obviously, we need to see how they progress and work. It would certainly be premature for me say whether they were at this point, in his choice phrase, ''to my liking''.
 Subsection (2) of the new clause is a little puzzling. As I have explained both to the House and in Committee, regional management boards are being established under guidance issued by the Local Government Association. That guidance recommends that they be constituted under sections 101 and 102 of the Local Government Act 1972. That means that they can consist only of elected members from existing fire and rescue authorities. So, the new clause would make 
 the Secretary of State require the bodies to do what they are already doing—thereby substituting a compulsory approach for a voluntary one. 
 I suspect that there may be an underlying concern that the Secretary of State could appoint non-local authority members to the RMBs, but such a concern is unnecessary. I reassure hon. Members that the Bill gives the Secretary of State no such power. RMBs do not feature in the Bill; they feature only in the national framework. The hon. Member for Southport may fear a future centralist version of the national framework that includes such a requirement. I can assure him that our approach will remain one of encouraging voluntary collaboration among elected members. 
 Finally, the new clause would require the Secretary of State to fund the formation of RMBs separately and specifically. Again, that seems to misunderstand the nature of the bodies being established. RMBs are about collaboration, not new bureaucracy. They are delivery mechanisms intended to generate more efficient operations. Our figures show that the amount of money that individual fire and rescue authorities are contributing to RMBs is relatively small—indeed, very small compared with the overall budget. For example, the four north-east fire and rescue authorities have each set aside just £15,000 from a combined budget of more than £100 million to fund the first year of operation.

Philip Hammond: With my usual concern for the Minister, I urge him not to repeat the statement that RMBs are not about introducing additional bureaucracy. I ask him not to repeat that statement by means of telephonic communication to a fire and rescue authority, or he might find himself prosecuted.

Nick Raynsford: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman with great pleasure that I repeat in front of the Committee that this is a practical, sensible way forward to enable real efficiencies—and there are significant efficiencies to be achieved, for example through procurement and training—as well as to achieve more effective resilience. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Southport will accept that the new clause is not necessary and that in some ways it sets back the process of establishing effective regional bodies to achieve the objectives that I have outlined. I therefore hope that he will withdraw the motion.

John Pugh: With such magnificent and plausible assurances, what else can I do but withdraw the new clause? It does seem redundant. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 7 - Regional assemblies

No. NC7, to move the following Clause:—
 '(1) In its application Regional Assemblies, the following provisions of this Act have effect as if for each reference to the Secretary of State there were substituted a reference to the Regional Assemblies—
(a) Parts 1 to 6;
(b) sections 57 and 58.
 (2) Sections 57(4) and (5) do not apply to an order or regulations made by the Regional Assemblies.
 (3) For the purposes of this clause, a ''Regional Assembly'' means an elected assembly for a region that has been established pursuant to a referendum held under the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003.'.
—[Richard Younger-Ross.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Richard Younger-Ross: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I have to confess that earlier this afternoon I doubted that we would get to this point. I am delighted that we have. I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, in particular, for helping us to do so. The new clause would give regional assemblies the same decentralised power under the Bill as that proposed for the Welsh Assembly. If regionalisation is to mean anything, it should be about moving powers down from local authorities, rather than up. We therefore hope that the Minister sees that there are good reasons why some of the powers that he currently holds could equally be held by the elected authorities that we shall have in the north-east and the north-west. The arguments on the matter are well rehearsed.

Philip Hammond: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that every now and then I write an amendment that I look at the next morning and realise that it is a piece of total and utter garbage. I hope that I have had the good grace not to move them. This new clause is the worst that I have seen in the entire time that I have been dealing with Bills in Committee. It is a preposterous piece of regional extremism; I have never heard such nonsensical argument. The hon. Gentleman argues that we should devolve powers downwards, yet the powers in question—powers of fire and rescue authorities—are already exercised by local authorities. The proposals are utterly unworkable—giving the powers of the Secretary of State, many of which are specifically about creating a national framework, to individual regional assemblies so that there would be a different regime in each part of the country. I can only repeat that it is the worst new clause that I have ever seen.

Nick Raynsford: I am not sure that I will go quite as far as the hon. Gentleman, whose contribution to the production of new clauses and amendments that might appear to merit the term ''preposterous'' has also been significant. However, I can find very little to recommend this new clause.
 In our most recent debates, we have highlighted the importance of effective measures to improve operational efficiency and not create bureaucracy. To create structures that will require separate regional frameworks, region-specific audit procedures and performance measures, and to enter into a whole series of operational procedures with not only the UK Parliament, but, in the case of the north-west and the north-east, adjoining devolved administrations, seems a bizarre proposition. 
 I can see no benefit from the new clause; I can see a great deal of bureaucracy and confusion. It would undermine the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to establish a framework that ensures that national matters are handled at a national level; that matters that are best handled at a regional level are handled regionally; and that those matters best handled locally are handled at a local level. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.

Richard Younger-Ross: I thank the Minister for his response, but there is an inconsistency: Wales is being given powers but the English regions are not. The Minister is being inconsistent and I will not withdraw the motion.
 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

Nicholas Winterton: I am unsure whether we have finished on a high or on a low, but at least we finished with a little bit of vigour.
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Nick Raynsford: We have completed our business, with extraordinary precision, to the exact minute allocated in the programme resolution. This Committee has been good, effective and thorough. It has scrutinised the Bill rigorously and covered every element in it. That does not always happen, and it is a great tribute to the firm and fair chairmanship of Mr. O'Hara and yourself, Sir Nicholas, and the contributions of hon. Members that we have achieved this outcome. I wish to express thanks to all those who helped our proceedings: the Clerks, the Hansard reporters, the police and others who were responsible for ensuring that the Committee ran smoothly.
 I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who as always has been assiduous and courteous in pursuit of the Opposition's scrutiny role. I was saddened that he was not always supported by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who enlivened our proceedings briefly, but I am delighted that the hon. Member for East Devon was able to be here throughout the proceedings. I offer my thanks to the hon. Member for Teignbridge, particularly for his short and usually constructive 
 interventions. He was supported by the hon. Member for Southport, who also made several telling and valuable contributions to the debates. 
 I offer a great debt of thanks to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has been an absolute rock of support. This was his first Committee on the Front Bench; I am sure that there will be many more. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), who oversaw our proceedings with the proper efficiency required of the Whips Office and ensured, despite a brief moment of difficulty over one of the knives, that we ended at precisely the right time and with the right result. To end on an 11-2 vote can hardly be a bad thing from the Government's perspective. I am grateful, too, to my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), despite a brief moment when I thought that she was about to support an Opposition amendment. 
 It is time to end our proceedings, and I am very grateful to all my hon. Friends for their diligence in ensuring that we had a Government majority almost all the way through and for their helpful contributions to the debate. 
 I am particularly grateful to you, Sir Nicholas, and to Mr. O'Hara not only for ensuring that we did the job properly and thoroughly and stayed in order, but for giving a light and humorous perspective on life and on our proceedings. These scrutiny functions make for serious occasions, and they can become a bit dour if there is not some humour from time to time. As always, you have enlivened us with your humorous yet efficient approach to chairing our proceedings. 
 We had certain difficulties with names from time to time. I am glad that no one managed to get my name wrong. We had the three Ps—paranoid, preposterous and pedantic—and we nearly had ''opportunistic'' as well. It does not start with a P, but it compensates by having two Ps in the first three letters, so perhaps we should refer to the four Ps. 
 We had a wonderful time considering parliamentary drafting. I cannot think of an occasion when so much attention has been given to parliamentary draftsmen's choice of words, although on this occasion, unlike the last Committee on which I served with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, we did not have to debate whether a sentence could begin with the word ''but''. Nevertheless, there was the splendid declamatory style of clause 34(2), which begins with the words ''These are the questions''. There is great sonority in that, for which we should pay tribute to the parliamentary draftsmen. 
 There have been other, stranger moments, not least the five-minute teach-in on the pronunciation of Teignbridge from the sitting Member of Parliament as well as an interesting excursion into how he procured a certain shirt that he was wearing one day in Committee. 
 On that note, Sir Nicholas, we should draw our proceedings to a close. I endorse the motion that we should now report the Bill to the House.

Philip Hammond: I shall remember the Committee as the closest that I have come to defeating the Government in a Standing Committee. Were it not for your diligent and ponderous handling of points of order, Sir Nicholas, we might have done it, then the Government Whip, while disappointed on one front, would no doubt have seen his Bill accelerate towards completion in just a few minutes, although not perhaps the completion that he would have wished.
 The Minister mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold. I should perhaps put it on the record that he very much regrets that he has not been able to join our proceedings for much of the time because of his commitment to Northern Ireland statutory instruments, which are an increasing burden on this place. 
 I thank you, Sir Nicholas, and Mr. O'Hara for chairing the Committee with a firm hand but good humour throughout. I do not know whether it is just that I am becoming more sensitive, but I find that these days I am less often brought to order and better able to detect when I am straying outside it before I run off the road. 
 I also want to thank the Ministers for the generally constructive way in which they have engaged in the debate, notwithstanding the odd digression into accusations of preposterousness and paranoia. I hope that the Minister of State will agree that some issues that have been aired will need to be aired again, because they have given rise to concerns that need to be looked at in future. 
 In particular I want to thank the Clerks, whom the Minister also thanked. Although he cannot thank his officials in the Committee, I suspect that he depends on them in the way that Opposition Members depend on the Clerks in the Public Bill Office to help them with the intricacies of legislation. I also want to extend our thanks to the Hansard reporters, the police and all the other staff who make the Committee function smoothly. 
 Yes, there have been one or two confusions over names. The Minister said with some satisfaction that his own name had not been got wrong. He may be surprised to know how many times I find he is confused with Mr. Ransford when I am talking to people outside this place. He might like to ponder that. 
 I think that we have done extremely well to bring our proceedings to a conclusion this afternoon, as intended, with the entirety of the Bill properly considered. I add to those of the Minister my thanks to every member of the Committee who has helped to make that possible.

Richard Younger-Ross: This has certainly been an interesting 10 sittings for me. It is only the third Standing Committee on which I have served and the first on which I have led. In many ways it has been an interesting learning curve.
 I, too, want to add my thanks to the Clerks in particular for all their help. Without their helpful advice it would be difficult for us to function as an Opposition.

Philip Hammond: You do not.

Richard Younger-Ross: Perhaps I should say, in that case, that it would be difficult for us to function as an effective Opposition. As ever, the Clerks' advice is helpful in what we seek to do.
 By and large this has been a good-humoured debate. Certainly some of the Ministers' responses have been helpful. We are grateful that they have taken a number of matters on board and will look at them. Some issues will arise again on Report, and some of our concerns, which I am sure are shared by others, will be aired again then and perhaps even in other places. 
 I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Cotswold, who has not been able to be in the Committee for most of our debates, because while I have been a member of this Committee, I have also been a member of the Committee that is consider the Housing Bill. I have not yet learned the art of bi-location; it was not in the job description when I applied for the post and it is one of which people should be made aware. 
 I thank you, Sir Nicholas, Mr. O'Hara and the other staff for their help. I particularly thank you or your gentle nudges towards progress, which have been most appreciated.

Nicholas Winterton: Perhaps I can have the final word from the Chair. If I can enter the debate between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative and Unionist party, I say to the Liberal Democrats that they are an opposition party and I say to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that his party is the Opposition—Her Majesty's Opposition—so we return to the debate on ''the'' or ''a'' that we had earlier today.
 I thank all members of the Committee for the part that they played, particularly those on both sides of the Committee who contributed to our debates. It has been interesting to sit in the Chair because a lot of expertise has been evident. I congratulate the Ministers on the way in which they dealt with questions from the Opposition, and I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on dealing with what was, for them, a difficult Bill. I pick out the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge who, as the Front-Bench spokesman for the Opposition, undertook a major duty and responsibility in tackling the Bill almost on his own. I hope that I am permitted to admire that from the Chair and to congratulate him on the job that he has done. 
 I thank the Clerks, who have done a wonderful job and are of huge support. The Committee does not know much about their little words in the Chairman's ear now and again, but their service is vital and unique to the House of Commons. I thank them very much, likewise Hansard and the police. This has been a good Committee and, to repeat the Minister of State's view, to have completed the Bill when the knife came down at 5 o'clock, even if we were slightly hurried latterly, suggests that the Committee can co-operate. I congratulate all hon. Members on taking the Bill through Standing Committee in a constructive and positive way. 
 It has been a pleasure to be one of the two Chairman and I thank my co-Chairman, Eddie O'Hara. We shared our 10 sittings equally—five each. All I can say is that I have enjoyed the Committee and I thank everyone. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
Committee rose at thirteen minutes past Five o'clock.